Read the whole thing, of course, but here's the bestest part (emphasis towel-snappingly added):

After trying unsuccessfully to expedite the process, she was diagnosed and treated at the Mayo Clinic. Holmes said U.S. doctors considered the cyst a tumour, and that it would cause death if not removed immediately.

Dr. Naresh Patel, neurosurgeon, diagnosed Holmes as having a Rathke's cleft cyst (RCC). The rare, fluid-filled sac grows near the pituitary gland at the base of the brain and eventually can cause hormone and vision problems. Dr. Patel joined forces with Drs. David W. Dodick, neurologist, and Michael D. Whitaker, endocrinologist, to work on Holmes' case.

Their further tests revealed an increase in the size of her cyst over a short period of time as well as progressively worsening vision. "I was concerned that the pressure on Shona's nerves were causing her to become blind," says Dr.Patel. "We needed to remove the cyst to save her vision."

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone at the Mayo Clinic considered that a tumour instead of a cyst, and the operation was to (allegedly) save her vision, not to save her life.

Some commentators on the right have been pointing to an interesting number that has been coming from the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, which Rasmussen bills as the "Presidential Approval Index," which Scott Rasmussen only began bringing out in late 2008. The key questions then are: What is this number, and is it a valid measurement of real popularity? In an interview today with TPM, Rasmussen defended the index's validity against some harsh criticism, saying that intensity of opinion -- the true figure measured by his index -- does indeed matter.

The thing to remember is that this is not simply subtracting all the respondents who disapprove of President Obama from the people who approve. Instead, Rasmussen takes the numbers who strongly approve or disapprove, and then performs this math. As of today, that index number is -10, compared to an overall rating of +1 in Rasmussen's daily tracker.

It would seem at first glance that this number can skew negative -- that is, the people who disapprove of a president are inherently more likely to feel strongly about it, compared to a certain level of lukewarm support for a president. For example, the 2004 exit poll put George W. Bush's strong approval at 33%, to strong disapproval of 34%. But his overall approval was 53% to disapproval at 46%, and he was re-elected 51%-48%.

I asked three prominent polling experts about this, and they all lambasted it.

And yet, you just know that there will be wanks who will be all over that disingenuous douchebagitude like stink on cheese:

A Rasmussen poll released today shows Obama's Approval Index sitting at minus 12 percent, his lowest number yet. 40 percent of American voters now strongly disapprove of Obama's performance, compared to just 28 percent who strongly approve.

Canada's Small Dead Animals: When you want to know what the truly stupid and gullible people think.

Truly the situation for Ontario’s parents with children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder regarding funding for ABA treatment is urgent. Yet, the McGuinty Liberal government is seriously dragging their feet.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

You're not going to believe this. OK, maybe you will. PZ warns everyone, in absolutely no uncertain terms, that all those visiting Ken Ham's "Creation Museum" must be on their best behaviour. Seriously, read the whole thing to be assured that PZ is giving everybody fair warning that he will tolerate no disrespect or incivility. Of any kind.

We then have someone who takes artistic license with the possibilities, which is clearly a riff off of PZ's treatment at the movie "Expelled" and involves creationist Ken Ham confronting PZ and expelling him, at which point PZ and his hordes transmogrify into killer cephalopods and do battle with Ken Ham, who mounts his dinosaur and ... well, you get the idea. Goofiness reins supreme.

Except for this brainless twatwaffle commenter over there:

So... Atheists wish that they'd initiate a violent conflict at the Creation Museum? That really says a lot.

And who might so thoroughly misrepresent someone's cartoonish attempt at humour? No, not him. You have to hop into the Wayback Machine to truly appreciate the monumental dishonesty.

Slash goes the knife cutting into her. The pain would be unbelievable. My baby....I must protect my baby! Or maybe they bludgeoned her to death, then cut out the baby. Smack goes the hammer to her head, but don't kill her until the baby is out or it may die. Don't shut off the images, it's the cowards way out. Imagine how Darlene Haynes died. No matter how you picture her death, it is violent.

Is it just me, or does Hunter seem to be thoroughly enjoying this in a "Neo Conservative" kind of way?

P.S. You might not want to bother trying to follow any of the links to Sandy's blog(s). Sandy is, inarguably, one of the stupidest human beings alive in that, after years of blogging, she has yet to figure out that it's a bad idea to keep moving content, changing pages, breaking links or renaming blogs, which is why almost any link to her that's older than a month inevitably ends up with a "404".

Over at "Small Dead Brain Stems," Kate and the Katettes put on a good show by pretending to give a crap about Canada's military:

Mercifully, refusing to be swayed by all those bogus crocodile tears, Blogging Tory "Neo Conservative" is sticking to his guns:

before you go all "taliban jack" here... try to remember that, statistically, we have lost less than 20 soldiers per year since 2001.

in contrast...

"nineteen snowmobilers have died in avalanches in B.C. and Alberta just this winter."and if you want a real wakeup call... read a book about world war one... or snakes.

And gunshot victims in Toronto, Neo. You forgot to minimize military deaths by comparing them to violent crime in Toronto. I'm just sayin'.BONUS TRACK: One can barely wait for Neo himself to start pretending he cares about murder victim Victoria Stafford, given his somewhat less than sympathetic rant from a few months back:

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that Neo is suddenly terribly, terribly awash with grief over this, after having told all of Woodstock to basically quit their boo-hooing, suck it up and stop being such pathetic attention whores over some missing kid.

Here's a thought,"Hunter": Shut the fuck up. Seriously, just shut the fucking fuck up. The day you actually give a crap about women because you sincerely care about them is the day we might take you seriously.

Stand in line in Times Square for an hour this morning for cheap tix, 50% off, "Yeah, I want the best seats you have left ... orchestra, middle ... yeah, that'll do," get to theatre, wander down to seats to discover they are in the absolute first row, dead centre, able to reach out and touch the stage without even leaning forward, get up close and personal with the players to the point where the narrator insinuates I have herpes but literally high-fives me, anyway. Awesome.

Perhaps Sgt. Crowley has even more explaining to do than originally thought.

Dear Global Warming Denialists: Actual scientists are researching whether or not our little planet is moving into a new "vicious cycle" of warming. Since no definitive conclusions have been reached, more research will be necessary. This, oddly enough, is how science should work.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Schedule for tomorrow morning is to hang out early at Times Square to possibly score cheap tickets to "Rock of Ages." I'm sure PSA is intensely jealous. REO Speedwagon! Journey! Styx! Bon Jovi! Boo-yah!

Friday, July 24, 2009

Document the dumbassitude.JESUS CHRIST, the level of stupid and evil in the comments section over there is truly breathtaking. Blogging Tory "General Brock" seems singularly ignorant about what this issue is all about, and it doesn't appear that anyone can clue him in.

Ah, well ... he's a Blogging Tory ... being a painfully retarded dumbshit goes with the territory. "Hunter" and Dr. Roy taught me that.JUST FOR THE FUN (AND PROFIT) OF IT, I think that every gay couple in Saskatchewan that wants to get married should now seek out Mr. Orville Nichols to perform the civil ceremony. Given that he believes that "God hates homosexuality," he will refuse, at which point you have the grounds for an HRC complaint and, if all goes well, you'll get $2500 out of it. Think of it as a belated wedding present.

Out of here shortly for parts unknown for a few days, so I'll leave you all in the capable hands of my loyal co-bloggers, who probably just hope I get eaten by wolves or something. In the meantime, what's happening with Obama birther and total nutbar Major Stefan Cook? Can life hoof him in the nads any more than it has already?

One can always hope.

BONUS SNARK: Right-wing loony blog gets all birther over this issue, and gets slapped down in its own comments section. Apparently, actual soldiers don't care much for weaselly little shits like Cook. Imagine that.

Given this, I have to wonder -- if the Canadian government doesn't think the person who had possession of that passport is the correct person, why aren't they freaking out and asking where the real Suaad Hagi Mohamud is?

In this morning's Blogging Tory news, numerous BTers are taking a perverse delight in the possibility of honour killings in Kingston -- sort of a "I told you so, nyah, nyah, nyah" attitude.

In unrelated news, when one brings up the topic of relentless violence against, and murders of, abortion providers by members of the Right, well, um, that's different because, well, it is. Now let's get back to talking about those bloodthirsty foreigners, shall we?UNINTENTIONAL IRONY: Author Mark Peters above -- who so sanctimoniously mocks others' religious beliefs -- that would be this Mark Peters. Probably the last person who should be engaging in comparative religious wingnut analysis. I'm just sayin'.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Everyone in Ottawa is starting to wonder. Unlike the Prime Minister, who has official duties representing this country at events like the G8 and at funerals for past Governors General, as Opposition leader, Michael Ignatieff doesn’t have any real obligations when the House isn’t sitting beyond representing his constituents in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Ha ha! Oh, man, that Stephen ... he just kills. Here, let me try: Where was Stephen Harper for about seven weeks last winter? Was he just vacationing? Oh.

Some advice, Stephen -- don't try to be funny. You're just not very good at it.BY THE WAY, Stephen, about those official PM duties like, oh, "representing this country at events like the G8 and at funerals for past Governors General," the last time I looked, it might have been better for Stephen the Corpulent if he had just stayedhome. Know what I'm sayin'?

And here's Buckets, doing a number on Shona Holmes, which raises the obvious question (suggested by a drinking companion last night): Whose idea was it to lie about Holmes' condition in a TV commercial?

That Holmes lied with her claim of imminent death is now indisputable. So who decided to perpetrate that fraud on the TV viewing public?

Did Holmes choose to do that, thereby suckering the American group "Patients United Now?" Or did someone else write the script, and simply had Holmes play along?

It's a simple question -- whose idea was it to lie about this?

AFTERSNARK: All of this proves that leftists are interested only in the politics of personal destruction and attacking terminal cancer patients and hoping they die. Any bets on who seizes on that meme first? You know it's coming.

The Ella Baker Center was connected to STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), a "multi-racial activist collective with Marxist influences" with which Jones was involved.

In 1992, Van Jones founded another STORM project, Bay Area PoliceWatch, a "hotline and lawyer-referral service for victims and survivors of police abuse." This is fitting, perhaps, since Jones was himself arrested and detained briefly during a protest after the Rodney King verdict that same year.

Jones told the East Bay Express in 2005:

I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist. (...)

I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.

Like a character out of The Big Chill, Van Jones seems to have evolved from radical activist to Establishment insider. Perhaps only a left-wing administration incapable of recognizing irony would put a self-described communist in charge of creating jobs.

This embarrassing revelation of someone's personal past has been brought to you by Kathy Shaidle:

“I was a leftist,” she explains. “And I was a drunk. The two usually go together.”

These days, Shaidle is quick to assure you that she is no longer a leftist.

AFTERSNARK: By the way, in case you needed to know, Shaidle is a useless liar. I thought it was important to point that out.

If the word "sociopath" just came to mind, there's a good reason for that.

AFTERSNARK: It's adorable how Ezra can write the following with a straight face:

Khadr was arrested by Americans and charged with murdering an American. The Americans have the evidence and the Americans have been preparing the case against him.

Apparently, Ezra's been too busy fellating himself for the last couple of years to keep up with the fascinating developments:

Lawyers for Omar Khadr called on U.S. authorities Monday to dismiss a murder charge against the Canadian, saying a newly revealed eyewitness account that had been covered up by the Pentagon casts doubt on the official version of events...

According to the original U.S. military version of events, Khadr ambushed American soldiers with a grenade following a four-hour fight at a mud compound in Afghanistan.

Pentagon officials later backtracked slightly after it was revealed nobody witnessed Khadr throw the grenade. Pentagon officials said an eyewitness wasn't needed, because Khadr was the only al-Qaeda fighter left alive and the only person who could have thrown the grenade.

However, a classified document, inadvertently released to reporters at the military prison by a Pentagon official Monday, provides a different eyewitness account of the events.

A U.S. soldier at the battle said in sworn testimony that two al-Qaeda fighters were alive after the fatal grenade attack.

The unidentified soldier says he killed the first al-Qaeda fighter before spotting Khadr, whom he said was wounded, on his knees and facing away from him. For reasons he does not go into, he says he shot him in the back twice.

Ezra would like to assure you that, with respect to this inconvenient truth, he doesn't give a fuck. Because, in Ezra's world, there's Ezra, and then there's people who don't matter. But I'm guessing you'd noticed that already.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Am I a bad person for so thoroughly enjoying the miserable misfortune that has befallen one Maj. Stefan Cook? So be it. In any event, here are more recent developments, for those of you who are sincerely interested in, you know, facts:

There have been many claims that Maj. Cook's security clearance has been revoked. This is inaccurate, and presumably based on lack of knowledge of the distinction between a security clearance and access authorization. It is not possible that he has already had his security clearance revoked. The legal requirements of administrative due process will take several months to revoke his clearance which is under review.

OK, so what did happen?

He has had a suspension of access pending final adjudication of a personnel security clearance. The issuance of a personnel security clearance (as well as the function of determining that an individual is eligible for access to Special Access program information, or is suitable for assignment to sensitive duties or such other duties that require a trustworthiness determination) is a function distinct from that involving the granting of access to classified information. Administrative due process requires he be given written notice, have an opportunity to respond, and receive an agency response, and there just has not been time to get that done.

So was he fired or not? Oh:

The suspension of access still functions to prevent Maj. Cook from performed either his military or civilian job. DoD would not call his employer and tell them they have to fire him. They would call and tell them that his access to DoD classified information had been suspended and that the employer could no longer let him handle or have access to classified information.

Which effectively makes him worthless as an employee. Now let's skip ahead to the good part:

(g) Disregard of public law, statutes, Executive Orders or regulations including violation of security regulations or practices.

(h) Criminal or dishonest conduct.

(i) Acts of omission or commission that indicate poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness.

All some military official needs to say is that there were acts of omission and/or commission which, in his opinion, indicate poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness.

And I believe that that, as they say, is that, because if there's one thing you can say about Major Cook, who officially joined a class-action suit against Obama in March, then volunteered for deployment a couple months after that, only to renege at the last minute in order to choreograph this idiotic stunt, it's that he's shown astonishingly poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness.

Blogging Tory and self-described military junkie Paul E. Marek of Saskatoon finally clues in to what we here at CC HQ have been blogging about for days:

The Invisible Hand of Socialism

Obama style:

The Department of Defense has allegedly compelled a private employer to fire a U.S. Army Reserve major from his civilian job after he had his military deployment orders revoked for arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company located in Tampa, Fla., and contracted by the Defense Security Services, an agency of the Department of Defense, the federal government has compelled the termination of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook.

Cook's attorney, Orly Taitz, wrote in her blog that Simtech CEO Larry Grice said he would try to find another position within the company for Cook, but nothing is currently available.

BY THE WAY, there's actually a simpler interpretation of what happened here. The DoD had no need to demand that Cook's employer fire him. Rather, all the DoD needed to do was revoke Cook's security clearance, at which point he was probably unemployable if his position with Simtech required such a clearance. At that point, Simtech undoubtedly had no choice but to release him, and all the DoD probably did was remind Simtech of their contractual obligations to the DoD with respect to DoD-related work -- no security clearance, no workee.

Others have been speculating the same way, such as here, where the government's revocation of someone's security clearance is essentially unreviewable. Quite simply, by his actions, Cook demonstrated that he was entirely untrustworthy, at which point the DoD acted appropriately, at which point Cook was well and truly fucked, and all by his own hand.

And Paul E. Marek is still as much of a total twatwaffle as ever. Quelle surprise.

IRONY, OH IRONY: Appreciate, if you will, the stone-faced hypocrisy of Cook's supporters, rising to his defense, demanding fairness, or due process, or employment rights and so on. These are, of course, the same howling yobs who absolutely despise the concept of unions and workers' rights, suddenly deciding that those rights are incredibly important after all.

Should the U.S.A. survive this generation, I believe history will have a different view of a quiet man whose courage and decency were too good for America. Jimmy Carter was vilified for being weak because he chose not to speak in threats, because he asked questions first instead of shooting. For some reason mysterious to me, the insane traitor Ronald Reagan is still held in high regard, venerated as a wise and brave warrior leader while Carter is sneered at by the mugwumps and ambulatory excrement of the right. What is it called when one sells weapons to a sworn national enemy? Oh, that's right... treason. And yet the legacy of Reagan somehow persists despite Iran/Contra and his ugly war crimes in Central America. Reagan was an addled and unprincipled mass murderer while Carter is a thoroughly decent man of peace.

In an act more courageous than anything conceived in the poisonous heart of a Reagan or a Bush, Carter has actually chosen to live by his principles and by his faith. He isn't a church whore , bending his knee for appearances, power and votes. He remains a man of conscience and commitment. Last week, while Washington's "Christian's" were shedding crocodile tears over their latest round of infidelities, lies and graft and angling for the ways and means to continue their wretched grasping for power, Mr Carter left them in his wake. Jimmy Carter, a true American hero, walked away from the corruption of the message in the book he lives by. Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention and in a stirring essay in Australia's The Age took a stand for the rights and future of women in the face of persecution and dehumanization as wrought by the world's major religions.

I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The full text of his essay is something that in a sane world would not need to be written or read. Would that the tough talking politicians, hawks and zealots of the day had a speck of the courage that Mr Carter exhibits here. If only the churches, temples and mosques chose to empower rather than horde power, to teach dignity and equality rather than viewing half of humanity as property.

In looking through Google images to find photos of the last American statesman to hold high office I came across endless bile and vitriol, wishes of death and imprecations against this humble man. How sad and blind so many people choose to become and stubbornly remain. We are led by fools and villains, bigots and monsters and too many of us are easy with that, content to wallow in violence both physical and spiritual. There is no more dangerous beast than a coward behind a gun. There is no more courageous creature than one who speaks unpopular truth. Jimmy Carter is a man of integrity and true courage, here's hoping some shard of his wisdom pricks the hides of the blowhards and brutes that see no solution to conflict but escalation and subjugation. Here's to his vision of equality without qualification, finding the sacred in each of us, brothers and sisters of every faith and race.

South Carolina governor and life-long morals scold Mark Sanford would like you to know that his abandoning his position and going missing for several days while bonking his Argentinian trollop is none of your fucking business. So get over it. Really.

In other news, screwing around on your wife is serious stuff. Really. Mark said so. Once.

Monday, July 20, 2009

In unrelated news, Barack Obama is a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad man who isn't even an American, whose wife is a reverse racist, whose kids are ghetto trash, and who should, for the good of the U.S., be impeached, driven from office or, at the very least, killed outright.

Blogging Tory and Kate McMillan groupie Monte Solberg thinks everyone wants to know about the British Open. Other BTers beg to differ:

Dear Monte Solberg

I think you have made a mistake, your blog isn't twitter. You are drowning out everyone's posts from page one of the BloggingTories. Please stop! Lot's of interesting posts are getting knocked off the front page. As of the time of this writing, you have 9 blog entries on page one.

In other news, you don't have to be an imbecile to be a Kate McMillan fan; it just makes it easier to blend in.

P.S. Dear RaR: When referring to the Blogging Tories aggregator front page, I would use the phrase "interesting posts" extremely sparingly. You don't want to devalue it completely, do you?

SC Gov. Mark Sanford takes yet another stab at apologizing to his state for "hiking the Appalachian Trail" as the kids call it these days. Amusingly, the commenters are having none of it, particularly his piteously sanctimonious references to God.

No word on whether God has forgiven Sanford either, or whether He even wants to be dragged into the middle of this pathetic whinefest.

DeMint’s discourse: Government is fascist, says he will ‘break’ Obama and cause the Senate ‘pain.’

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is ratcheting up his anti-Obama rhetoric. On a call with right-wing activists yesterday afternoon, he proudly proclaimed that he aims to “break” the President by defeating health reform. He also said recently that he prefers to cause “pain” to his fellow legislators rather than working on reform.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Over the last few days, we here at CC HQ have been having a howling good time, basking in the misery of one Major Stefan Cook, an Obama "birther" froot loop whose weaselly shenanigans to bring a lawsuit against Barack Obama regarding Obama's birth certificate cost Cook his job, probably his security clearance and may have set him up for a court martial, all of it richly deserved.

But what's truly curious is that this wingnut stipudity has been relentlessly promoted by the online compost pile "World Net Daily" who, weirdly, less than one year ago, had this to say:

ELECTION 2008Democrat sues Sen. Obama over 'fraudulent candidacy'Lawsuit disputing U.S. citizenship based in part on discredited claims

Posted: August 23, 2008

I'm sorry, what was that again ... all that bitching and moaning is based on "discredited claims?" What a peculiar admission for WND to make, given their current pimping of that same controversy. Oh, please, WND ... tell us more:

A prominent Pennsylvania Democrat has sued Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and, therefore, is not eligible to be president of the United States...

However, a WND investigation has found that at least part of Berg's lawsuit relies on discredited claims.

How odd, that they would have taken this position as recently as just last year. But don't let me interrupt -- carry on, WND:

... FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.

It's not "factchecker.org." it's "factcheck.org," but this is WingNutDaily we're dealing with here, so you have to expect illiteracy. But then the entertainment value kicks in:

A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

I'm sorry, WND, I didn't quite catch that, can you repeat that?

A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.

Yeah, I thought that's what you said -- a curious admission given that you're taking exactly the opposite position today.

How exactly does anyone take these whackjobs seriously? I'm sure this isn't over. I'm still really, really hoping for a court martial. That would make my day.

... Military personnel records show that Maj. Cook requested to serve on active duty on May 8, 2009 which was well after he would have been fully aware of the “birther” movement if the statements of his attorney prove to be true. Ms. Taitz also stated that Maj. Cook signed a consent letter in February 2009 which authorized her to represent him against President Obama. According to Ms. Taitz, Maj. Cook’s consent was given at approximately the same time as Lt. Col. Earl-Graef, USAFR, MC, who is listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit involving Maj. Cook which was thrown out on July 16, 2009 by a federal district court judge according to a report appearing in the Ledger-Enquirer. I asked Maj. Cook's attorney several times if my information was correct regarding the timing of her involvement with Maj. Cook and she stated repeatedly that he contacted her in February 2009. However, when asked about producing the consent letter, Taitz wavered stating that she had “so many” she could not be sure when it was signed or where it was located. In my opinion, the statements of Ms. Taitz confirm that Maj. Cook is a liar and made a false statement to the Army when he requested to serve on active duty in Afghanistan; a duty he had absolutely no intention of fulfilling. The good news is that the Maj. Cook may have cause to file a lawsuit against his attorney, Ms. Taitz for failing to keep her mouth shut about her involvement in his case.

I'm not sure that Taitz's blabbling about how early Cook got involved is all that big a deal since Cook himself yakked about it on Free Dominion back in March. So it's not like Taitz is spilling the beans or anything but, as a lawyer, she really is a stunningly incompetent airhead and twatwaffle.

And watch Taitz and fellow lunatic Alan Keyes get posterised on CNN:

The biggest disappointment in that clip is that no one has the sense to challenge either Taitz or Keyes and ask the obvious question: "What evidence do you have that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.?"

The entire "birfer" movement is based on the unwillingness of complete fuckwits to accept any evidence that's placed in front of them. But, as far as I know, no one has challenged them to produce a positive case -- that they have any evidence that Obama was born elsewhere. Surely, the most basic question to ask would be, "Where do you believe he was born?" And if they have no answer, tell them to please, for the love of God, fuck off and stick their collective heads in a threshing machine.

Come on, MSM, step up here -- ask the obvious questions. Wait patiently for the dodging, weaving and tap dancing. Then tell them to fuck off.

P.S. Make sure you check out Skilling's previous article here, where he patiently lays out how many military crimes he thinks Cook might be guilty of.

Recently, I turned on comment moderation here at CC HQ, because of a nasty infestation of blogger Spam that thinks I need to be reminded, countless dozens of times, about Yahoo hacking. So I enabled moderation, but in what I thought was a fairly clever and selective way -- it would apply only to comments being left on posts that were more than three days old, which seemed like a reasonable idea since a) virtually all of that Spam was being left (curiously) only on older posts and, b) after three days, most readers have moved on and rarely bother going back that far to continue whining and pissing and moaning and kvetching and yammering on and on and, God help us, childishly, panty-yankingly on.

This morning, I checked the moderation queue to find 59 comments waiting for the CC HQ stamp of approval: 57 telling me they like me, offering me Viagra, and making sure I know that they can teach me how to hack Yahoo, Hotmail and Facebook. And these two here:

Malcolm+ said...

Ah, so you're accustomed to having people out you as a bigot. 10:30 AM

Yes, that would be recent arrival and "Neo Conservative" sock-puppet Malcolm+ who, yes, really does think as slowly as you suspected and is now clearly convinced that we here at CC HQ want nothing more than to trump his right to free speech in someone else's living room and to be a total and utter twatwaffle, whinging on about topics that everyone else has long since abandoned because there's more news out, which is kind of why we call it "news" but none of this matters to Malcolm+, who, dear God, wants desperately to be a free speech martyr of some kind to the point where he's brought the wood and is now handing you the hammer and nails.

Now if only Malcolm+ could keep up with the conversation, we could avoid these little unpleasantries in the future. Sadly, I don't see that happening. Mostly because Malcolm+ is a pissy little wank, but I suspect you'd already figured that out by now.

And trying desperately to avoid whapping the low-hanging fruit at the Blogging Tories, let's check in on co-founder Stephen Taylor, who takes his "But ... but ... but the Liberals!" shtick to new and nauseating extremes:

Ah yes, who was the minister responsible for CSIS at the time of Omar Khadr’s interrogation? Khadr was interrogated and filmed by CSIS during February 2003. Wayne Easter was solicitor general of the Liberal government at the time.

Good point, Steve, since the expected reaction to Khadr's arrest and imprisonment back in 2003 is exactly what it should be these days, if you ignore the fact that 2003 was not that long after the alleged act when emotions were still a wee bit raw and maybe folks weren't thinking as clearly as they could have been, and that CSIS has demonstrated a nasty habit of not filling people on what they're doing all the time so who knows what Easter had been told, and that, at the time, everyone was accusing Khadr of having killed a "medic" when, it turns out, that was a completely crap accusation, and that the long-believed claim that he was the only terrorist fighter in the area and therefore must have been the killer is also complete crap, and that, oh, right, Khadr was 15 at the time and is therefore, under international law to which Canada is a signatory, a child soldier.

But other than that, Stephen, yeah, those two situations are exactly the same.

As a kid I was, like most of my peers, hooked on NASA. It has been some forty years since humans set foot on the moon and still conspiracy buffs contend that it never happened. I prefer to believe that it did indeed happen, that highly skilled and courageous astronauts flew from Earth and landed on the moon. If I had chosen to believe otherwise, I wouldn't be as rude or as foolish as one Bart Sibrel, who decided to accost Buzz Aldrin and beak off. Oops. And for the twatsies in the crowd, no I don't advocate solving problems with violence (wait for it you know it will be coming). Regardless, here's a sweet right hand from a 72 year old man into the rude moosh of a younger and larger fellow bent on confrontation.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Instead of realizing that her case is dead, Orly Taitz has instead amended the original Complaint to make it even more bizarre: ...

Essentially she wants to turn the case into a class action and give every member of the military an excuse to disobey orders, not that most of them would take her up on that offer.

4. Once again, Orly has signed the Complaint herself. She’s not admitted to practice in Georgia, and she hasn’t been admitted to pro hac vice in this case either. There’s no local counsel. Does she really think the Judge isn’t going to notice that.

There's a common meme -- one admittedly pushed every so often right here at CC HQ -- that, despite the sad-sack collection of screeching yobs, howling dingbats, ugly racists and intellectual cripples that make up Canada's Blogging Tories, its co-founder Stephen Taylor is somehow above all that. He's more reasonable, he's more sane, he's more honest -- he's just not as batshit fucking crazy as the rest of them.

Rubbish.

Based on a recent post of Stephen's, I believe we can put all of that to rest, as we read here:

A lesson that I’ve learned from online politics and media in this town is that official still matters. You or I could make commercial quality Youtube videos everyday until the next election, but unless they were official party efforts, they would be largely ignored because of significance of source. If Stephen Harper made a Youtube video slagging Ignatieff, it would be national news. Iggyfacts.ca is a decent enough website, but while it got some buzz in the blogosphere, it didn’t get too much play in the mainstream media.

Yes, poor iggyfacts.ca didn't get much play in the MSM. It couldn't possibly be because what it offered up was unmitigated crap that would embarrass a moderately sophisticated 8-year-old, like:

Yes, that poor MSM -- completely unaware of the priceless political punditry they were missing. But that's not why we're here. No, here's Stephen's money quote, a bit earlier in that same piece:

In December, I launched RallyforCanada.ca to help organize nationwide protests against the Ignatieff endorsed unelected coalition government supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

Uh huh.

Here's Stephen Taylor, Canadian political wunderkind, yapping on ominously about that previous "unelected coalition government," as opposed to, what, Stephen? An elected one? How do you figure that would have worked, Steve? It kind of goes with the very definition of the term that a coalition government in Canada is not going to be the one that was elected, so one isn't sure what your point is.

But Stephen isn't done, as he digs a bit deeper into the sleazebucket with "supported by the Bloc Quebecois," clearly a quick smear job given the fact that they're, you know, French and everything and God help us all that a legitimate federal political party have any say in what happens in federal politics. And let's conveniently forget that Taylor's Conservative Party of Canada, not that long ago, tried exactly the same stunt. One wonders why that plays no part in Stephen's little missive.

One further wonders what the fuck they're teaching over there at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy when members like Stephen Taylor still haven't figured out how Canadian politics work, or what the deal is with coalition governments. And one wonders even more why so many people (moi included) have been willing to cut Taylor any slack at all when, quite simply, he's no better than the rest of the ugly liars over there at the BTs.

Sadly, regardless of how charitable one wants to be, Taylor is just another of the relentless liars in the Blogging Tory sandbox. He's not special. He's Kate McMillan without the paint fumes. He's Dr. Roy with better spelling. He's "Neo Conservative" without a police scanner. Quite simply, he's as wretchedly worthless and dishonest as everyone else at that house of douchebaggery. He just happens to dress slightly better. But take away the suit and haircut and, truly, he wouldn't stand out in that crowd. Not even a little bit.

But if we're lucky and he keeps at it, maybe some day Stephen will figure out how Canadian elections work. That would be awesome.

... Nationally, 54 per cent said they opposed it, while 34 per cent said they supported it, according to the poll. Twelve per cent were undecided.

Opposition was decisive in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, while Western Canada had a narrower gap between those who support the mission and those who oppose it, EKOS found.

In related news, Canada's Blogging Tories still vocally defended the mission, as long as other people got to die for it because the Blogging Tories have, you know, important stuff to do. Kinda like this.

But back to Dr. [Orly] Taitz, the California dentist-turned-political-coo-coo. Orly is also a “lawyer,” having earned her degree from the William Howard Taft online correspondence school. This allows her to practice in California, but not elsewhere, nor is she a member of the American Bar Association.

This can only get more amusing. Feel free to stay on top of this and keep the comments section topped up.

Late on Tuesday afternoon, July 14, 2009, at around about 4:30 pm, Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook returned a call to an unknown telephone call from (813) 828-5884 and was told that his services were no longer required in Afghanistan and that he need not report for duty. In addition Plaintiff an e-mail with the revocation order attached from Master Sargent Miguel Matos (Exhibit C). Upon receipt of the revocation, Plaintiff Major Cook called his civilian boss, the CEO of Simtech, Inc., a closely held corporation that does DOD contracting in the general field of information technology/systems integration, at which Plaintiff Major was employed until taking a Military Leave of Absence on Friday July 10, 2009, a senior systems engineer and architect, in preparation for his deployment to Afghanistan. (Plaintiff has five Cisco Systems certifications in information technology dating from 2000 and just recertified in June 2009 for the Cisco Certified Design Expert qualification exam.)

The CEO of Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, explained to Plaintiff over a series of four conversations within the next two hours, that he had been terminated. Grice told the Plaintiff that he would no longer be welcome in his former position at SOCOM but that Grice wanted to see whether he could find something within the company (Simtech, Inc.) for Cook. The upshot was that at this time Grice did not have anything for Plaintiff to do. Grice told Plaintiff, in essence, that the situation had become “nutty and crazy”, and that Plaintiff would no longer be able to work at his old position.

Grice explained that he had been in touch with Defense Security Services (an agency of the Department of Defense<1>, with regional offices located in SOCOM Headquarters at McDill Airforce Base in Tampa, Florida), and that DSS had not yet made a determination whether Plaintiff Major Cook’s clearances would be pulled, but Grice made clear to Cook that it was DSS who had compelled Cook’s termination. Essentially, because of the “nutty and crazy” situation and the communications received from DSS was no longer employable by him at all. So he was not optimistic about getting me another job at the company. Grice also reported to Plaintiff that there was some gossip that “people were disappointed in” the Plaintiff because they thought he was manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes. Grice then discussed Plaintiff’s expectation of receiving final paychecks (including accrued leave pay) already owed, without any severance pay, and wished the Plaintiff well.

Oh, no ... the wingnuts are furious. Man, that's gotta hurt. And here's the capper -- the closing line at that second link:

More indication that prosecution of Cook under the UCMJ is under consideration. If he's being investigated, security clearance gets pulled.

So Cook, in trying to be clever and game the system to score political points, has likely lost his security clearance and may very well be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Gosh, that's too bad. He seemed like such a nice guy.

GUESS WHO SAW THIS COMING: Yup. And make sure you read the comments at the DU link. They're just adorable.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF THIS: Cook's dingbat lawyer is posting her request for injunction on her blog. And she's still trying to make an issue of Obama's birth certificate. Is she completely insane?

Amusingly, what's missing from that legal pleading is the rather embarrassing admission that Cook applied to join the "birther" class-action suit in February, then officially volunteered for a 1-year stint overseas in May, making his whining about conscience an obvious fraud and exposing him for the political con artist that he is. I don't think he's getting out of this unscathed.

OH, CHRIST: If you can stomach it, feast your eyes on the freeper-flavoured conspiracy theorizing here.

You know, Steve, we've all become pretty used to your Blogging Tories being an appalling collection of bigots, racists, white supremacists, neo-Nazi sympathizers and just plain scientific illiterates and deranged, eliminationist yahoos incapable of any sort of intellectual discourse. But you've truly outdone yourself this time with one Maria S., otherwise known as "Dodo Can Spell," who started off badly by condoning law-breaking and now, astonishingly, is directly accusing certain people (your humble scribe included) of having leprosy.

So this is the face of the Blogging Tories you want to show the public, Stephen? Seriously, that's what you're promoting as thoughtful, nuanced, Canadian conservative punditry? I just wanted there to be no misunderstanding that that's your idea of acceptable, right-wing political commentary in this country.

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

Really? Is that what happened? I know ... let's check in with someone who's not an astonishingly, pig-ignorant imbecile. Like, oh, this guy:

UPDATE: The Army has revoked the deployment orders for a soldier who said he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because (he believes) Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.

And here's the money quote:

Because he's a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can "ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty," a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Wow, imagine that ... the revocation had nothing whatsoever to do with the asinine accusation of Obama's birth certificate, and everything to do with the guaranteed freedom of a reserve soldier to un-volunteer up to the day of departure.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Blogging Tories: Yes, they really are all that fucking stupid.

P.S. You don't need to trust the Huffington Post. Here, here's a slightly different take on it from www.military.com:

U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, the reserve soldier who says he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president, has had his deployment orders revoked, Army officials said.

Lt. Col. Maria Quon, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis, said Cook was no longer expected to report today to MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., for mobilization to active duty, according to a report in the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer of Georgia.

The paper said Cook, as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee, had volunteered for a year's deployment to Afghanistan on May 8 and his orders were issued June 9. Quon told the paper that IMAs who volunteer may ask for a revocation up until their reporting date, but that Cook had not asked for this. Quon also told the paper she could not say why the Army had revoked his orders, citing the Privacy Act.

And once again, we note that, because Cook is a reservist who volunteered (and, yes, one wonders why he did so in the first place), he has every right to change his mind, and the revocation says nothing about the merits of his idiotic lawsuit.